€2 charge for not using direct debit in UPC-NTL Broadband

tsewang · 19-05-2008 07:30PM #1

Hi!

most users of the UPC - NTL Broadband have probably already been "surprised" by the latest €2 extra charge for not using direct debit for paying the bill.

this charge looks to me unlawful as it has not been agreed in the contract between us and the UPC company. this is really not a nice way of treating the customers!

i am not a lawyer, but if there is anybody on the forum who may knows the legal stuff, please advise me if NTL users can refuse to pay the extra charge in this situation.

i am also going to contact The Consumers' Association of Ireland.

please let me know your opinions - the more of us the better chances:)

cheers,
Andrew

p.s. By the way I don't know about you but I have been informed about the charge after it has actually been made to my UPC account (so it has been made without me being even aware of it). I do not think that any respectful company would act like this!

doodlbug18 · 19-05-2008 08:42PM

I'm no fan of NTL/UPC - ditched them years ago in favour of Freesat - lousy TV signal and chronic customer service. They still don't even offer Broadband in my area. They are years behind Freesat which now offers almost all popular channels including HD without any monthly rental. I prefer to have DSL for Broadband as DSL is generally much more reliable and offers dedicated cable-pair to each customer...etc. etc.

...However, much despite my contempt for NTL, I fully support their policy of charging customers who refuse direct-debit. It is my view that all service companies should have this policy. There should be a relationship between the price of a service and the cost to the operator in providing it. Customers who pay manually are more likely to pay late or forget to pay, on average. Also the cost of processing manual payments is likely to be much higher. Customers who opt for direct debit will almost never pay late, and hence these customers are carrying the costs associated with the manual payers.
There is no such thing as a free lunch - why should those who pay their bills efficiently and on time be subsidising those who don't? A similar principle should apply to those who abuse their ISP by heavy Torrents downloading etc. Why should light users subsidise them? Likewise people who build one-off-houses in the sticks should not have to be subsidised by the rest of us. I'm fully behind NTL/UPC in this respect-they don't appear to tolerate cross-subsidisation of their services.

admol · 19-05-2008 08:45PM

I think that if your not happy with it just leave them. Spamming boards will get you no where. I've never had NTL but looking at their website they look pretty competitive. Even with the €2 extra they are way cheaper then anyone else from what i can see.

In fact i think it can be a good thing. Direct debit saves a company money. Why should people who use direct debit have to pay extra because you don't?

I'm not sure about enforcing it on existing customer but i'm sure if you read the Terms & Conditions which you've agreed to you'll find its probably covered in some shape or form.

Y2J_MUFC · 19-05-2008 08:51PM

admol wrote: »

Spamming boards will get you no where.

Spamming boards? WTF?

This is fairly typical of what a lot of companies get away with. If they have even 5,000 customers there instantly 10,000 quid generated out of thin air. Crazy. I'll never be getting NTL broadband!

tsewang · 19-05-2008 09:48PM

Sorry Guys for sending my message a few times, but I was very upset about the whole issue and I am totally new to this Forum (it won't happen again:)

I am upset mostly about the way the NTL company introduced the charge and the rationale for it.

I have been always paying my bill on time so why I should accept extra charge for those who don't. Why hasn't the NTL informed me before? (i was really not aware of this). Why don't NTL have to make the customers agree on the charge in the first place? What is my contract with NTL worth then?

I agree with the answer of a user from another thread I sent my message to. Here it is:
"I agree I think it would be better to punish customers who pay late and charge them the 2 euros a lot like the credit cards late payment charges"

KillerShamrock · 19-05-2008 09:51PM

Mmm im not sure about this but was there not some law or rule or something passed a few years ago saying that companies cannot charge customers extra for choosing not to pay by direct debit cause its unfair to charge people. I believe it was down to the fact not every one has current accounts and banks dont generally allow direct debits on saving accounts
Someone correct me if im wrong

Predhead · 19-05-2008 09:55PM

doodlbug18 wrote: »

I'm no fan of NTL/UPC - ditched them years ago in favour of Freesat - lousy TV signal and chronic customer service. They still don't even offer Broadband in my area. They are years behind Freesat which now offers almost all popular channels including HD without any monthly rental. I prefer to have DSL for Broadband as DSL is generally much more reliable and offers dedicated cable-pair to each customer...etc. etc.

...However, much despite my contempt for NTL, I fully support their policy of charging customers who refuse direct-debit. It is my view that all service companies should have this policy. There should be a relationship between the price of a service and the cost to the operator in providing it. Customers who pay manually are more likely to pay late or forget to pay, on average. Also the cost of processing manual payments is likely to be much higher. Customers who opt for direct debit will almost never pay late, and hence these customers are carrying the costs associated with the manual payers.
There is no such thing as a free lunch - why should those who pay their bills efficiently and on time be subsidising those who don't? A similar principle should apply to those who abuse their ISP by heavy Torrents downloading etc. Why should light users subsidise them? Likewise people who build one-off-houses in the sticks should not have to be subsidised by the rest of us. I'm fully behind NTL/UPC in this respect-they don't appear to tolerate cross-subsidisation of their services.

It's the exact same as processing a dd.

tsewang · 19-05-2008 10:08PM

Predhead wrote: »

It's the exact same as processing a dd.

...and they are the company's operating costs - not ours!

The company shouldn't transfer its own operating costs on the consumers like that!

doodlbug18 · 19-05-2008 10:31PM

Predhead wrote: »

It's the exact same as processing a dd.

I'm not an expert on Business banking charges, but a quick look at AIBs business banking website seems to suggest that they give businesses major incentives to avoid manual transactions. Automated transactions cost 15c vs cash transactions of 90c per €100 on notes lodged, and €2 per €100 on coins. NTL as a large Corporate may qualify for discounts on these charges, but the ratios are likely to remain the same. NTL may also incur further charges associated with their own handling of manual transactions - eg reminder notices to late payers. All of these are legitimate operating expenses - but they should only be passed on to those customers who are causing the increased costs through their failure to use dd.

However, I accept tsewang's point that as a non-dd customer paying on time, one should not be penalised due to customers who don't pay on time. This suggests the need for a 3 tier transaction handling structure - Free for dd, premium for manual payment on time, plus penalty for non-payment on-time. The penalty probably needs to be substantially higher than €2.

Cabaal · 19-05-2008 10:49PM

tsewang, banned from broadband for spamming
all of your posts consist of the same crap about the 2e charge

This news is not new and is overe 12 months old, its legal and its been debated to the very end on radio and on boards, your not going to change how UPC operate with regards to this charge

Thor · 19-05-2008 10:56PM

i have ntl/upc and just got the bill there in the other day for the first 2 months which came to €39.23. Now i just have the broadband and do not pay by direct debit. although the bill payment was due the end of the first month, the bill itself was for 2 months

i did not see any charge for not using dd. although i did see something on there website about non direct debit charge.

anyway the way i see it is that i can understand a late payment fee but charging people for paying manually(as so they can see how much they are paying and in case anything is wrong with the bill). that should not be allowed to charge these people extra.

I think ntl just want people to pay without even getting to look at there bill first which is why i dont pay by direct debit.

Predhead · 19-05-2008 10:57PM

doodlbug18 wrote: »

I'm not an expert on Business banking charges, but a quick look at AIBs business banking website seems to suggest that they give businesses major incentives to avoid manual transactions. Automated transactions cost 15c vs cash transactions of 90c per €100 on notes lodged, and €2 per €100 on coins. NTL as a large Corporate may qualify for discounts on these charges, but the ratios are likely to remain the same. NTL may also incur further charges associated with their own handling of manual transactions - eg reminder notices to late payers. All of these are legitimate operating expenses - but they should only be passed on to those customers who are causing the increased costs through their failure to use dd.

However, I accept tsewang's point that as a non-dd customer paying on time, one should not be penalised due to customers who don't pay on time. This suggests the need for a 3 tier transaction handling structure - Free for dd, premium for manual payment on time, plus penalty for non-payment on-time. The penalty probably needs to be substantially higher than €2.

Possibly from the bank's side but from NTL's part in the process, a dd and a manual payment would be the same kinda process basically. Also you get A LOT of returned dd's from people who can't even keep 50 or whatever quid in their accounts for a bill. I know there's an admin fee for it but it customers will get a way with paying it if they complain enough.

Going by your last sentence I hope I'm never a customer of your company!

cgarvey · 19-05-2008 11:45PM

Predhead wrote: »

It's the exact same as processing a dd.

Hogwash. That's not even including the value on the hassle-free collection and guaranteed (to an extent) income.

Was this additional charge not meant to be outlawed? Was that an urban myth, or just a law that never materialised?

dub45 · 20-05-2008 12:06AM

What people sometimes forget or do not realise is that some companies apply charges to people who miss direct debits in addition to those imposed by their banks.

For example if you miss a direct debit your bank will impose a charge and ntl will impose a charge (even though as far as I am aware they do not warn customers about this charge) so it can cost upwards of €25 euros to miss a direct debit.
Be careful!!!

The ESB also do this as far as I am aware and as they do not warn customers about it when they sign up to direct debit payment I think it is probably illegal.

MHP · 20-05-2008 12:18PM

I have the triple service from UPC, have never paid by direct debit (I use billpay.ie) and have never been charged €2.

Ian Beale · 20-05-2008 12:29PM

Cabaal wrote: »

This news is not new and is over 12 months old

Yup and not only that before they introduced the charge they sent out a leaflet with their new charges,they were changing their tv package prices at the time and at the very bottom it stated €2 would be charged if you didn't pay by DD.

TheCaveman · 20-05-2008 12:29PM

I wont pay by DD as:

1 - I want to see the bill first.
2- My first year with them, they had me on the wrong deal, and many fights later they fixed it, very long story
3- I never said I would pay with DD, when I joined 2.5 years ago.
4 - If they do charge me the €2, I will just pay €2 less.
Simple as that

brightspark · 20-05-2008 07:37PM

Richie6904 wrote:

but was there not some law or rule or something passed a few years ago saying that companies cannot charge customers extra for choosing not to pay by direct debit cause its unfair to charge people

I think this is the legislation you were thinking about

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2007/a1907.pdf

BUT parts of that were never enacted in the commencement order

http://www.entemp.ie/publications/sis/2007/si178.pdf

specifically parts 48 and 49

2. The 1st day of May 2007 is appointed as the day on which the provisions
of the Consumer Protection Act 2007 (No. 19 of 2007), other than sections 48
and 49, come into operation.

48. Prohibition on surcharges where one method of payment chosen in preference to another.
49. Requirement that surcharge (where otherwise permissible) be stated as part of price.

So while consumers were promised action (I think it was originally supposed to stop some of Ryanair's practices) as usual nothing got done!

But at least it made those "pyramid" schemes like "Hearts, Women Empowering Women, and Circles" illegal. (For all involved, not just those at the very top)

And there are a few other things in parts 2 and 4 that might be useful for bashing a few companies with! Worth spending some time reading it.

Solair · 21-05-2008 10:49AM

Legislation was introduced last year that ought to have outlawed this practice, it also aimed to outlaw credit card surcharges where there was no option but to pay by credit card e.g. when buying tickets for a concert or an airline.

However, the Government was convinced not to enact those particular parts of the bill.

If UPC offered a DD discount fair enough, but imposing a charge is just nasty. It hits a lot of elderly customers in particular as they often don't have current accounts.

dub45 · 21-05-2008 10:58AM

Unfortunately we are being rushed towards dd type systems all of which seem to me to favour business over the customer. For example have you ever seen a copy of a guide to the direct debit system in print? Do bank staff know the direct debit system? The dd system clearly provides for 14 days advance notice but several companies regard 'notice' as meaning what they want it to mean and they have moved towards regarding the date of the bill as being the start of the notice period which is nonsense. Companies can put any date they want on the bill and it is impossible to know when it was actually posted.

Note how IPSO are forever going on about how there are too many payments by cash in Ireland and the cheque is being rapidly phased out too!!

NinjaTruncs · 21-05-2008 11:14AM

I wouldn't mind paying by DD if they could sort out their system. I signed my dad up to them a few years ago and set up a DD to come out every two months, the very first DD they took a years fees from my back and caused me to be overdrawn and it took months to get my money back, they only wanted to offer me credit.

Then when i moved into my apartment signed up to them, I reluctantly agreed to use a DD and they messed up the first month again, charging me for things tha i was told were free and for things I didn't even order.

as the saying goes fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. It's not going to happen a third time.

dub45 · 21-05-2008 11:36AM

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

I wouldn't mind paying by DD if they could sort out their system. I signed my dad up to them a few years ago and set up a DD to come out every two months, the very first DD they took a years fees from my back and caused me to be overdrawn and it took months to get my money back, they only wanted to offer me credit.

Then when i moved into my apartment signed up to them, I reluctantly agreed to use a DD and they messed up the first month again, charging me for things tha i was told were free and for things I didn't even order.

as the saying goes fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. It's not going to happen a third time.

This is exactly the situation which sums up all that is wrong with the direct debit system. There is no proper complaints system built in which would allow a company to be sanctioned or allow a customers complaints to be dealt with speedily.

21-05-2008 12:43PM

"......the very first DD they took a years fees from my back and caused me to be overdrawn and it took months to get my money back....."

With the DD system, you are authorising companies to deduct unspecified amounts from your account. I don't think that's a good system at all. There is a DD guarantee scheme, but as the above poster found, it can take quite some time to obtain a satisfactory result.

A previous poster mentioned billpay.ie as an option; online banking is also an option whereby you retain control of your bank account, but the company still receives payment electronically.

dub45 · 21-05-2008 01:13PM

1013 wrote: »

"......the very first DD they took a years fees from my back and caused me to be overdrawn and it took months to get my money back....."

With the DD system, you are authorising companies to deduct unspecified amounts from your account. I don't think that's a good system at all. There is a DD guarantee scheme, but as the above poster found, it can take quite some time to obtain a satisfactory result.

A previous poster mentioned billpay.ie as an option; online banking is also an option whereby you retain control of your bank account, but the company still receives payment electronically.

There is a dd guarantee scheme but it is ill thought out and does not favour the payer particularly in a situation where there are implications such as been pushed into the red and incurring extra charges etc etc.

One of the really big weaknesses of the scheme is that there is no incentive for the companies to behave properly - they can literally do what they like and there is no sanction whatsoever. The dd facility will never be withdrawn from any big company. Look at how BT behaved for years.

Richard Dower · 21-05-2008 10:10PM

I refuse to use DD for any reason, companies have carte blanche to take any amount they want from your account. If they overcharge you it's a nightmare to get the money back.

I pay my Chorus through internet banking, i get my bill....i know how much they're supposed to charge...i pay. If it's anymore then expect i rasie hell....with DD they'll take the money first then you have to get it back.

aidan_walsh · 21-05-2008 10:22PM

Has anyone even checked their website?

http://www.upc.ie/service/?aid=99

Why is there is a €2 non-Direct Debit fee on my bill?

Your new bill will itemise our non-Direct Debit charge which was previously included in your normal subscription fee. Paying by Direct Debit is the most convenient way to pay your bill; it will save you time and it’s hassle free with the reassurance that your bills are always paid on time. To pay your bill by Direct Debit please complete the Direct Debit mandate on the back of your bill and return it to UPC, PO Box 321, Dublin 3, or call us on 1908 and one of our agents will assist you.

€2 charge for not using direct debit in UPC-NTL Broadband

Should NTL be allowed to make customers pay extra charge that wasn't agreed with them 33 votes

Comments